-----Original Message-----
From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>"I don't think it's fair to ask people to go through
>that hoop just to find out the licensing terms that
>apply to the product. The license should be included
>in full in any publication that uses it."
>
>Fair to whom?
>
>Here is the problem with that position. Only a maximum
>of 5% of purchasers are ever going to care about
>whether content is open or closed because it has no
>impact on running the game. The only people who would
>care are future d20 developers who want to use
>something from my work in their future work. And that
>is probably only 5% or that 5% that cared in the first
>place. So I guess I dont mind a system or notice that
>is convenient to 99% and inconvenient to 1%. Because a
>purchaser is going to be pissed to see they spent
>money on a product with two pages that are full of
>usless legal crap (in their minds). If that makes a
>potential d20 producer have to check my web site, I
>dont think that is so onerous.
I disagree with this attitude. What you propose it completely
understandable from a publishing and marketing standpoint. Extra page(s)
equals extra cost. Drive customers to the website to view the license in
the hopes that they will look around more and buy more products.
I see every person who buys an OGL product as a potential future OGL
developer. Say John Doe has never heard about OGL but he happens to buy a
copy of an OGL adventure. He has this great idea for a spin-off adventure.
He writes up his adventure and runs some friends through it, they love it
and tell him that they think it's so great that he should sell it. If the
adventure he purchased contained a complete copy of the OGL, he could read
it and learn that he could do this by simply following the rules set down in
the license. Even if he didn't completely understand the license, it gives
him a starting point to finding out that he can in fact publish his derived
adventure and make money at it. If however, the adventure did not produce
a copy of the license, all he's got is some unfamiliar language about the
adventure being covered by the license and mention Product Identity and Open
Game Content which he doesn't understand and a link to a website with more
information. Maybe John doesn't have easy access to a computer or maybe he
does but he gets busy and never gets around to checking out the site.
Either way he probably won't pursue his dream of publishing the adventure.
My point is that exclusion of the license from a product has more potential
to drive someone away from Open Gaming than its inclusion. I've never seen
someone refuse to buy something of quality just because it contained a page
or two to text that they didn't care about. I may or may not care about who
playtested D&D3E but the pace that there is an entire page devoted to
listing all their names is not going to influence my decision to purchase
the Player's Handbook.
Chris
www.IDrankWhat.org
www.coincidental.net
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
